Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

That's because, like him, you misunderstand the question. Do you have children ? If a child asks her father "why is the Sky blue, daddy ?" do you think "because it's not red" is a valid answer ? Pointing out to the child that there are many different colours is not only trivial but insulting, because that's actually the reason why the kid is asking: she wants to know the cause, not the effect.

I'm very much aware that people have opinions. I happen to have those myself, odd as that may seem. But discussion is, in part, a way to either understand or resolve differences, so basically telling me I shouldn't ask people about their opinions in order for me to understand them better on the reasoning that "that's just the way it is" seems counter-productive. You'd have only threads of people stating their opinions and never discussing anything.

That's because, like him, you misunderstand the question. Do you have children ? If a child asks her father "why is the Sky blue, daddy ?" do you think "because it's not red" is a valid answer ? Pointing out to the child that there are many different colours is not only trivial but insulting, because that's actually the reason why the kid is asking: she wants to know the cause, not the effect.

This is precisely the point C.E. Evans was trying to make. Not everything has a root cause. It's also possible that the root cause may be known but not completely understood. If my son or daughter asked me why the sky was blue, I would try to answer the question as best I could, but I would also explain to them that I don't know everything. That's not the sort of answer a child wants to hear. Most children don't realize that their parents don't know everything. But it's the truth, and to lie to a child merely because they're too young to know better is despicable. There are ways of answering a child's questions in a way that's appropriate for his or her age without side-stepping the issue in the process.

Belz... wrote:

I'm very much aware that people have opinions. I happen to have those myself, odd as that may seem. But discussion is, in part, a way to either understand or resolve differences, so basically telling me I shouldn't ask people about their opinions in order for me to understand them better on the reasoning that "that's just the way it is" seems counter-productive. You'd have only threads of people stating their opinions and never discussing anything.

I don't recall anyone saying that you shouldn't ask questions. The problem that I have with your line of questioning is that it assumes there must be a logical reason for everything when in fact there may not be. Not everything can be explained in a way that makes sense: that's not a cop-out. It's not meant to patronize. It is what it is. I can't put it any other way than that because there isn't another way to explain how I feel.

--Sran

__________________"He clapped his captain—his friend—on the shoulder. Yes, this man was very much like James Kirk, in all the ways that mattered." --Christopher L. Bennett-- Star Trek: Mere Anarachy, The Darkness Drops Again

This is precisely the point C.E. Evans was trying to make. Not everything has a root cause.

Again, that's fine. I still thought it relevant to ask the question.

I don't recall anyone saying that you shouldn't ask questions. The problem that I have with your line of questioning is that it assumes there must be a logical reason for everything when in fact there may not be.

For me if they are going to do new series in 2016. I like idea having Pike. Pike had large profile in ST09 & STID. New fans from NuTrek would relate to him. However as for Greenwood as Pike. I dont like it. Both he is just too old and i am not sure if he want the part. Better use younger version. I have idea for premiere episode that i want share.

We go back to aftermath of the Narada attack on USS Kelvin. First Federation ship to respond to USS Kelvin SOS call was USS Phoenix commanding by young Captain Pike.
USS Phoenix arrives and quickly rescues USS Kelvin survivors(Pike personally sees Kirk Mom and newly born Kirk.) and approaches the Narada. Narada has been damaged by USS Kelvin explosion. Narada weapons are off-line. Captain Pike captures the moment and engages the Narada. USS Phoenix disable Narada impulse engine and warp capability and Captain Pike is in brink of victory when sensors pick up three Klingon warship declocking. They order the USS Phoenix halt their attack and retreat to Federation Space. Captain Pike has no choice. He is facing his own
Kobayashi Maru. He order the retreat and leave the Narada and their crew at the mercy of the Klingons.

For me if they are going to do new series in 2016. I like idea having Pike. Pike had large profile in ST09 & STID. New fans from NuTrek would relate to him. However as for Greenwood as Pike. I dont like it. Both he is just too old and i am not sure if he want the part. Better use younger version. I have idea for premiere episode that i want share.

We go back to aftermath of the Narada attack on USS Kelvin. First Federation ship to respond to USS Kelvin SOS call was USS Phoenix commanding by young Captain Pike.
USS Phoenix arrives and quickly rescues USS Kelvin survivors(Pike personally sees Kirk Mom and newly born Kirk.) and approaches the Narada. Narada has been damaged by USS Kelvin explosion. Narada weapons are off-line. Captain Pike captures the moment and engages the Narada. USS Phoenix disable Narada impulse engine and warp capability and Captain Pike is in brink of victory when sensors pick up three Klingon warship declocking. They order the USS Phoenix halt their attack and retreat to Federation Space. Captain Pike has no choice. He is facing his own
Kobayashi Maru. He order the retreat and leave the Narada and their crew at the mercy of the Klingons.

Pike was still in the academy when the Kelvin was destroyed. He couldn't be commanding the ship that rescued the survivors.

You never know. Kirk fell ass-backwards into his command. Why not the same for Pike?

--Sran

__________________"He clapped his captain—his friend—on the shoulder. Yes, this man was very much like James Kirk, in all the ways that mattered." --Christopher L. Bennett-- Star Trek: Mere Anarachy, The Darkness Drops Again

I realise that, but I don't understand why some people are dead-set against the idea of starting from a clean slate, and won't give the New Trek a fair chance.

What makes you think critics of JJ Trek didn't give it a 'fair chance'?

I was initially excited about the idea of a reboot when Trek 09 was still filming, although I didn't particularly like the casting choices. I think anyone who liked TOS was jazzed about revisiting that era. I was thinking maybe it would be the way Enterprise should have been. Retro 60s, but with a higher budget look. That would have been really bold. I just didn't like how JJ realized that world. I don't like how it looks, how it functions, or what kind of message he has to deliver.

Even when, as many smarter people have said, it's the same TOS Trek as the original TV show?

CE Evans, please stop that. This is the third time I say that I know that. My puzzlement IS NOT at why people don't like the new movies. It's at why they want to go back to the old timeline rather than just ask for better movies in the new one.

Have you considered the possibility that people are so put off by the more recent films that they would prefer to avoid the new timeline altogether? It's not as though there's no room for further exploration of the primary timeline, a universe with which fans are much more familiar with and accepting of.

--Sran

So, wait, you're saying the new time line, which has produced the two biggest Star Trek movies ever, would be a mistake to use for a TV Series because a very small segment of the Core Fandom doesn't like them and your solution is to return to the Prime Time Line, which drives people away simply because of the massive bucket of existing Canon that scares people off, and that same Prime Timeline also killed Star Trek with Staleness

How does that make any kind of sense?

I'm not against a Prime Timeline Series, but, I don't delude myself that it wouldn't have a hell of an uphill battle obtaining the needed ratings.

Would the average viewer, likely not a hard core Trek fan, really know (or care) if the new series was set in the old or new timeline?

... which has produced the two biggest Star Trek movies ever

The box office? Adjusted for inflation ... no.

which drives people away simply because of the massive bucket of existing Canon that scares people off ..

Setting the new series in the Romulan War era, late 22nd century or early/middle 23rd century would nicely fix that.

, and that same Prime Timeline also killed Star Trek with Staleness.

It wasn't the time period the show as set in, the "staleness is the fault of the production team and the writers.

A new series, strattled with the same difficulty, would have the same problems, regardless of what universe or time period in which it was set.

The folks holding the purse strings will look at the failure of Nemesis and Insurrection and Enterprises (The Series) and then look at today's Star Trek and blow raspberries at setting it in the Continuity burdened Prime Timeline. Sure, the audience wouldn't know going in, but, they'd figure it out in a big hurry and bail, just like they did with DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. And of course, the General Audience will care if it's set in the Prime Time Line, because they won't understand half of what's going on. There is no reason to use the Prime Timeline if you're not going to use the Continuity.

Maybe I'm wrong about ST'09 being higher gross than TMP, it's not important enough to research, but, STID is definitely higher than TMP, and STID and ST'09 blow away the figures for Insurrection and Nemesis, and pile Enterprise on top of that, and it will turn the money people off. If anyone wants to spend money making the Series, they are going to want to go where the money currently is.

General Audience is afraid of Star Trek on TV because of the Continuity, that is a simple fact, they won't lose that fear without it being proven to them that it's not a problem, but, if it's set in the Prime Universe, they will know it and bail.

Again, I am not against a Prime Time Line Series, I would definitely watch it, but, Sran's post suggests a new time line Series would drive the audience away, because a small fraction of the Core Audience doesn't like the new Movies, and then he/she goes on to suggest a prime Time Line Series would have people clamoring to it, when it's already been proven (as far as the money folks are concerned) that a Prime Time Line Series will do exactly the opposite.

And of course, the General Audience will care if it's set in the Prime Time Line, because they won't understand half of what's going on.

To be fair, I don't fully agree. While I can see that reboots are easier for new viewers to get into, new franchises often come equipped with quite a bit of backdrop, and no one seems to have a problem with that.

True. But an existing franchise just has so much history behind it that a lot of people find it overwhelming. A new franchise is new and people know that everyone going into the film is as clueless as they are while with an existing franchise makes people think you need inside knowledge to enjoy it so some in the audience have a clue and that disturbs people on some level.

__________________JJverse Star Trek...ROCKED on May 17, 2013 and beyond!

I think what everybody wants "consumer-wise" is anything during the 23rd century prime or otherwise. The 24th century trek at it's best was pretty good ( but not fantasmagorical like Game of Thrones), but a good portion of those series for me was a snooze-fest, especially Voyager. I cannot stand that show, no matter how hard I try. I commend the EMH, best doctor since McCoy.

I've read the ST: New Voyages, The pike comic book. It was much more of what I wanted. More Space Cowboy, less Diplomatic Shitick.